Which counties and jails signed new contracts with ICE in 2025, and in which states are they located?
Executive summary
Reporting from late 2025 shows a patchwork of new or newly revived ICE detention arrangements signed in 2025 across multiple states — including specific county jails in New York and Minnesota, county facilities and private prisons in Michigan and California, and at least one federal notice covering Kansas — but available sources do not provide an exhaustive national roll call of every new contract [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. New agreements in New York: county jails and 287(g) expansions
Local reporting documents that multiple New York counties signed new enforcement or detention agreements with ICE during 2025: Broome County explicitly budgeted to house ICE detainees and entered enforcement pacts described in 2025 coverage, and Broome, Nassau and Niagara counties are reported to have entered 287(g) deputization agreements this year; Steuben County’s sheriff signed two ICE agreements in July 2025 to authorize jail-based ICE activity and arrest authority was granted in additional counties noted in the reporting [2] [7] [1].
2. Minnesota: a cluster of counties with newly disclosed agreements
State reporting from Minnesota lists eight counties with agreements tied to ICE as of November 2025, naming Freeborn, Kandiyohi and Sherburne among others and describing several distinct contract types — warrant-service officer pacts, jail-enforcement models, and task-force agreements — that were signed or publicly disclosed in 2025 [3].
3. Michigan: a mix of county contracts and a state prison on ICE’s list
Michigan coverage documents active county jail contracts in 2025 that generated millions in ICE revenue for Calhoun, Monroe and Chippewa counties, and advocacy reporting and ICE notices also placed North Lake Prison in Baldwin, Michigan on a list of facilities ICE has targeted for custody or new contracting this year [6] [5].
4. California and private prison contracts: California City Correctional (Kern County)
Private prison announcements and watchdog reporting show CoreCivic and ICE activity in 2025 including a new or expanded ICE contract involving California City Correctional in Kern County, which began holding ICE detainees in mid-2025 as part of a set of large private-provider agreements [4] [5].
5. Federal notices and other state facilities: Kansas, Louisiana and broader procurement signals
Advocacy and watchdog groups flagged ICE procurement documents and “sole source” notices in 2025 that name larger facilities targeted for new ICE custody, including the Midwest Regional Prison in Leavenworth, Kansas and other large centers referenced by the agency’s emergency solicitations; these notices indicate ICE sought to bring those state or federal-run prisons into its detention network in 2025 though the notices differ from publicly posted county IGSA signatures [5].
6. What the coverage does — and does not — prove about “who signed what”
The public record assembled by local reporting, company press releases and watchdog briefs establishes specific counties and named facilities that either signed new or newly publicized agreements with ICE in 2025 (examples: Broome, Steuben, Nassau, Niagara, Freeborn, Kandiyohi, Sherburne, Calhoun, Monroe, Chippewa, California City Correctional, North Lake Prison, Midwest Regional Prison) but it does not amount to a complete, Department of Homeland Security–verified registry of every new IGSA, BOA, 287(g) or private contract signed nationwide in 2025; ICE data practices and shifting categories (including reclassification of custodial arrests) have obscured some public accounting, and some reports note longstanding agreements being reactivated rather than brand-new one-off contracts [2] [8] [3] [5].
7. Motives, money and the politics shaping reporting
Coverage points to financial incentives for counties and private companies — federal per-diem and fixed payments, and county budget pressures — as drivers for signing or expanding ICE contracts, while advocates warn that emergency procurement and sole-source notices in 2025 favored rapid expansion with fewer oversight safeguards; local law enforcement and sheriffs’ associations frame agreements as budgetary or public-safety decisions, revealing competing agendas in the available reporting [4] [2] [5] [3].
Limitations of this compilation: the cited sources identify a set of counties and facilities publicly reported as signing or being targeted for ICE arrangements in 2025, but they do not provide a definitive nationwide list; a comprehensive federal disclosure or FOIA-driven inventory would be required to claim completeness [5] [8].